# OAR Box 1875

Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 20 ) ll-E-3 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45AM Sheet 20of 86 P. 1P. 2

MEETIN GSUMMAR

Y 

## A-90-1 9

ll-E-3 8 f V ""lMi' : •': '

DATE : Marc h11 , 199 2 LOCATION : Durham , Nort hCarolina | £P AAl SUBJECT : AP I Question s Concerning Draf t HO NRegulatio n

DEC

### 1 aiy &

Thi s documen t summarize s th e meeting wit hth e America n Petroleu

mInstitut e (API ) hel d Marc h11 , 1992 , a t th e Mutua l Lif e Building i n Durham , Nort hCarolina . Alis t o f participant s i s presente d i n Attachmen t A . Th e discussio ncentere d o nth e hazardou s organi c nationa l emissio n standard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (NESHAP) , commonl yreferre d t o a s th e HON , an d wa s organize d int o seve n sections : Overvie wo f th e Regulation , Wastewater , Transfe r Operations , Storag e Vessels , Emission s Averaging , Proces s Vents , an d Reporting an

d Recordkeeping . Th e topic s fo r discussio n wer e outline d i nth e meeting agenda (Attachmen t B) . 1. 0 OVERVIE WO F TH E REGULATION Ms . Daphn e McMurrer , o f th e Standard s Developmen t Branc h (SDB) , bega n th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency(EPA ) presentation s b

ygiving a genera l introductio nt o th e HO N regulatio n an

d b yproviding an overviewo f Subpart s F , G , an d H . She indicate d tha t Subpar t F contain s th e applicabilit yan d genera l requirements ; Subpar t Gcontain s th e provision s fo r proces s vents , storag e tanks , transfe r operations , wastewate r collectio n an

d treatmen t operations , an d emission s averaging ; an d Subpar t H contain s provision s fo r equipmen t leak s agree d upo nb y a regulatorynegotiatio n committe e (5 6 F R9315 ; Marc h6 , 1991) . Ms . McMurre r als o wen t ove r specifi c area s i nwhic hth e EP Ai s requesting publi c comment . Th e handout s fo r he r presentatio nar e i n Attachmen t C

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

mP. 3

Applicabilit yo f th e HONwa s discussed . I nattemp t t o clarif yth e definitio n o f a majo r source , an AP I representativ e aske d ho wmethy l tert-buty l ethe r (MTBE ) an d benzene , toluene , an d xylen e (BTX ) proces s unit s a t a petroleu mrefinerywoul d b e considere d i f th e unit s themselve s d o no t excee d th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment' s 10/2 5 ton s pe r yea r majo r sourc e threshol d fo r hazardou s ai r pollutan t (HAP ) emissions ? Th e EPAresponde d tha t a majo r sourc e ha s bee n define d usin g th e terminology"contiguou s are a unde r commo n control " and , a s such , i s base d o nth e cumulativ e emissio n contribution s o f individua l proces s unit s a t th e source . Consequently , al l th e potentia l emissio n point s a t a sourc e ar e considere d togethe r t o determin e i f a sourc e i s a majo r source . An AP I representativ e the ninquire d ho wth e HONwoul d affec t th e loading o f benzene . Th e EPAsai d th e scop e o f th e HONwoul d cove r th e manufactur e o f benzene , however , i t woul d no t cove r th e loading o f benzen e a t independent , bul k terminals . I f a sourc e manufacture s some MTB E fo r gasoline , bu t als o import s mos t o f it s suppl yfromothe r locations , onl yth e tank s storing MTB E tha t wa s mad e on-sit e woul d b e covere d b yth e HON . An AP I representativ e aske d ho wa sourc e owne r shoul d determin e i f a proces s uni t woul d b e covere d b yth e HON . Th e EPA responde d tha t th e owne r shoul d firs t asses s whethe r th e unit s unde r consideratio n ar e define d a s syntheti c organi c chemica l manufacturin g industry(SOCMI ) units , an d the n evaluat e whethe r o r no t the yproduc e o r us e HAP's . A t majo r sources , al l SOCM I proces s unit s tha t produc e o r us e HAP' s ar e subjec t t o th e HON . 2. 0 WASTEWATE R Ms . Debbi e Stackhouse , o f th e SDB , summarize d th e wastewate r provision s o f th e HONan d referre d t o th e handou t i n Attachmen t C . Sh e als o note d tha t revision s t o Table s 8 an d 9 i n

MCH/07 6 -••ting.su

mP. 4

Attachmen t C ar e underwayt o accoun t fo r correction s t o some Henry' s La wconstants . An AP I representativ e aske d ho wth e poin t o f generatio n woul d b e determine d fo r a proces s i nwhic ha stea mstrippe r i s integra l t o a downstreamoperation . Th e EPAsai d tha t stea m stripper s hav e no t historicall ybee nconsidere d par t o f th e productio n process . However , th e EP Aaske d AP I t o provid e specifi c example s i n whic hth e stea mstrippe r i s integra l t o a downstreamproces s fo r consideration . An AP I representativ e sai d biologica l treatmen t (bio-treatment ) unit s seeme d t o b e considere d differentl yunde r th e HONan

d th e benzen e NESHAP . H e adde d tha t a remova l efficienc yo f 8 5 percen t i s presume d i nth e benzen e NESHAP , whil e a 9 9 percen t remova l efficienc yi s require d fo r th e HON . Th e representativ e note d tha t thes e remova l efficiencie s d o no t appea r consistent , an d suc han inconsistenc ywoul d complicat e a refinery' s strategie s fo r complying wit hth e benzen e NESHAP an d th e HON . Th e EPAresponde d tha t th e evaluatio no f bio-treatmen t a s a contro l technologywa s consisten t fo r bot hrules , an d tha t bio-treatmen t coul d b e use d t o compl ywit hbot hrules . I nth e HON , th e specifi c percen t remova l require d i s base d o n a weighte d percen t o f remova l o f al l HAP compounds , i nadditio n t o benzene . Also , th e EPAnote d tha t th e HONdoe s no t requir e 9 9 percen t remova l fo r al l HAP' s i n th e stream , onl yth e mos t volatile . Lowe r remova l efficiencie s ar e require d fo r les s volatil e compounds . Specifi c informatio n relating t o remova l o f volatil e organic s i s note d i n th e propose d Metho d 30 4 accompanying th e HON package . An AP I representativ e aske d wh ya n emission s reductio nleve l o f 8 7 percen t wa s selecte d rathe r tha n7 7 percent . Th e EPA responde d tha t manyoptiona l emissio nreductio nlevel s wer e examine d fo r wastewater . Base d upo nth e flowrate , concentration , emissions , an d cos t informatio n i n th e HONdat a

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 3P. 5

base , 8 7 percen t wa s selecte d a s th e leve l fo r th e contro l requirement s i n th e draf t propose d standar d fo r wastewater . An AP I representativ e pointe d ou t tha t o npag e 12 6 o f th e draf t preamble , a n incrementa l cos t fo r th e contro l o f th e 7 7 percen t leve l t o th e 8 7 percen t leve l appear s fa r to o lowan increas e (approximatel y1 5 percent ) compare d t o th e increas e i n volum e controlle d (approximatel y4 0 percent) . Th e EPAsai d ther e mayb e a typographica l erro r i nth e draf t preamble . However , th e impact s fo r eac hcontro l leve l appea r correct . Th e EPAcommitte d t o examining , an

d i f necessary , correcting th e package . An EPArepresentativ e pointe d ou t tha t a referenc e t o a 90-dayperio d fo r reporting whic hwastewate r portion s o f th e facilit yar e subjec t t o th e HONshoul d b e revise d t o rea d 12 0 day s an

d shoul d b e include d wit hth e implementatio n plan . Th e EPAals o too k thi s opportunit yt o explai ntha t th e implementatio n pla n i s no t a binding documen t an d a facilit ymay wor k wit hth e EPARegio n o n th e plan . I nrespons e t o a nAP I question , th e EPAnote d tha t th e implementatio npla n i s no t intende d fo r publi c comment ; however , th e publi c mayhav e acces s t o th e part s o f th e pla n tha t hav e no t bee n claime d confidential . Th e EPAplan s t o distribut e supplementa l guidanc e whic hshoul d clarif yth e provision s fo r th e implementatio npla n alon g wit hth e proposa l package . Ms . Penn

yLassiter , o f th e Chemical s an d Petroleu

mBranc h (CPB) , illustrate d severa l o f th e HONwastewate r provision s an d treatmen t option s b ypresenting thre e cas e studies , on e fo r a ne w sourc e and tw o fo r existing sources . Th e cas e stud yhandou t i s presente d i n Attachmen t D . Durin g revie wo f th e cas e stud yth e EPAexplaine d th e proces s uni t alternativ e treatmen t standar d an d th e facility-wid e loading option . Wit hth e proces s uni t alternativ e treatmen t standard , stream s tha t canno t b e treate d downt o 1 0 part s pe r millio n b

yweigh t (ppmw) , ca n b e recycle d t o a process , sen t t o a biotreatmen t unit , o r treate d furthe r wit ha steam stripper .
MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 4P. 6

Wit hth e facility-wid e loading option , onl yGroup 1 stream s tha t ar e no t treate d i n accordanc e wit han yo f th e treatmen t option s ar e summe d t o determin e i f th e facilit ymeet s th e 1 megagrampe r yea r loading cut-off . Stream s tha t ar e no t counte d includ e Group 2 stream s an d Grou p l stream s tha t hav e bee n treate d b yan y o f th e optiona l methods . An AP I representativ e aske d i f th e calculatio ni nCas e Stud y Numbe r 2 fo r th e 9 9 percen t remova l wa s base d o nal l th e stream s controlled . Th e EPAresponde d tha t Calculatio nNumbe r 2 i s an exampl e o f th e require d mas s remova l option . Th e calculatio no f th e amoun t o f mas s tha t i s require d t o b e remove d i s base d upo n th e targe t remova l efficiencie s o f th e HAP' s i nth e Group 1 streams ; however , th e tota l reductio ni nmass , a s measured , may includ e th e mas s o f HAP' s actuall yremove d frombot hGroup 1 an d Group 2 stream s combined . 3. 0 TRANSFE R Dr . Jane t Meyer , o f th e SDB , reviewe d th e majo r section s o f th e transfe r operation s portio no f th e HONregulation . Sh e explaine d tha t th e rul e i s simila r t o th e benzen e NESHA P fo r transfe r operations . Dr . Meye r the n mentione d tha t CM Aha s aske d t o hav e vapo r balancing adde d a s an alternativ e contro l strateg y an d tha t th e EPAi s currentl yconsidering thi s request . An AP I representativ e aske d whethe r th e vapo r pressur e cut-of f i n th e rul e applie s t o eac hindividua l HA P transferred . Th e EPAresponde d tha t a n owne r o r operato r woul d determin e whethe r a rac k mus t b e controlle d b ycalculating a weighte d averag e vapo r pressur e o f al l organi c HAP' s transferre d through th e rack . Th e averag e i s weighte d b yth e throughpu t o f eac hHAP . An AP I representativ e aske d ho wth e vapo r pressur e an d throughpu t cut-off s wer e develope d an d i f th e EPAstarte d wit ha targe t mas s emissio n rate . Th e EP Aresponde d tha t thes e criteri a ar e th e maximu

machievabl e contro l technology(MACT ) floo r leve l

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 5P. 7

o f contro l fo r transfe r operations . Th e floo r wa s determine d b y considerin g th e requirement s o f th e benzen e NESHAP an d Stat e rules . Fo r transfe r operations , th e floo r i s identica l fo r ne w an d existing sources . An AP I representativ e aske d fo r clarificatio no f th e requirement s fo r Grou p 2 transfe r operations . Th e EPAresponde d th e onl yrequirement s fo r Grou p 2 transfe r operation s ar e recordkeepin g requirement s use d t o prov e tha t th e poin t i s no t originall yo r ha s no t become a Grou p 1 point . An AP I representativ e sai d th e petroleu m industryi s use d t o th e gasolin e loading rac k standard , whic hi s state d i nterm s o f measurin g volatil e organi c compound (VOC ) i nmilligram s pe r lite r (mg/L ) a t th e outlet . H e adde d tha t theywoul d lik e t o avoi d an inlet/outle t tes t method . Th e EPAresponde d tha t becaus e o f th e lo wvolume s loade d i n th e SOCMI , expressing limit s i n term s o f mg/ L and testin g t o sho wcomplianc e wit ha limi t i nthi s forma t woul d b e difficult . Fo r thi s reason , th e HON , lik e th e benzen e transfe r rule , use s th e efficienc ytest . However , th e EPAstaf f state d thei r willingnes s t o conside r alternativ e tes t method s tha t ar e appropriat e fo r SOCM I transfe r operation s i f AP I woul d provid e informatio n o n an yrelevan t alternativ e tes t methods . 4. 0 STORAG E Dr . Jane t Meyer , o f th e SDB , reviewe d th e majo r section s o f th e storag e portio n o f th e HONregulation . Sh e explaine d tha t thi s portio n o f th e HONi s simila r t o th e provision s o f th e benzen e storag e NESHAP an d th e volatil e organi c liqui d (VOL ) storag e ne wsourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS) . An AP I representativ e aske d fo r th e basi s o f th e tank siz e differentiation . Th e EPAsai d tha t historically , i n NSP S an d Stat e regulations , storag e tank s hav e bee ngroupe d int o 3 tank size s (e.g. , smal l tank s having capacitie s betwee n10,00 0 an d 20,00 0 gallons ; mediu mtank s havin g capacitie s betwee n20,00 0 an d

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 6P. 8

40,00 0 gallons ; an

d larg e tank s having capacitie s abov e 40,00 0 gallons) . Th e EPAnote d tha t thi s differentiatio nha s bee n mad e becaus e i t i s mor e cost-effectiv e t o contro l large r tanks . An AP I representativ e note d tha t th e storag e vapo r pressur e cut-of f i s 0. 1 pound s pe r squar e inc habsolut e (psia) , bu t th e Rei d vapo r pressur e (RVP ) tes t metho d onl yha s a toleranc e o f 0. 3 psia . Th e EPAsai d tha t th e vapo r pressur e mayals o b e estimate d base d o n th e America nSociet yo f Testin g an d Material s (ASTM ) metho d o r o n standar d tex t references . Th e HONdoe s no t specificall yrequir e a vapo r pressur e test . An AP I representativ e wa s concerne d tha t distillate s wil l b e controlle d unde r th e HON . Th e EP Asai d tha t distillate s woul d almos t alway s hav e a vapo r pressur e belo wth e 0. 1 psi a cut-of f and , therefore , woul d probabl yno t b e covere d b yth e HON . I n response , th e AP I representativ e als o expresse d a concer ntha t th e decreas e i n vapo r pressur e cut-off s wil l se t a preceden t fo r decreasin g th e cut-of f furthe r unde r futur e rules . An AP I representativ e aske d i f th e vapo r pressur e determinatio n shoul d b e base d onl yo n th e organi c HAP' s i na mixtur e o r o n th e vapo r pressur e o f th e store d liqui d a s a whol e (including HAP' s an d non-HAP•s) . Th e EPAagree d t o provid e clarifying languag e fo r th e HON . Th e EPAsai d tha t CM Aha d expresse d a ninteres t i na lowe r bound , i n percentag e terms , fo r determining i f th e liqui d store d i n a tank shoul d b e considere d "HA P containing. " Th e AP I agree d tha t suc ha brigh t lin e applicabilit yboundaryshoul d b e considered . An AP I representativ e aske d i f ther e i s a n interna l rule-of

thum bth e EPAuse s t o determin e wha t i s a n acceptabl e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s value . Th e EPAresponde d tha t ther e i s n o singl e criterion . Severa l factor s ar e considered , including VO C control . Previou s NSP S mayb e i n th e roughrang e o f $2,000/megagram s (Mg ) VOC , bu t ar e calculate d i ndifferen t bas e

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 7P. 9

yea r dollar s an

d conside r man

yothe r factors . Unde r th e ne w Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA) , th e resul t mayb e different . Reference s t o previou s action s i n th e preambl e wer e t o specifi c SOCM I regulation s an

d wer e intende d t o showtha t th e HONi s generall y consistent . Th e inten t wa s no t t o impl ytha t th e decisio n criteri a ar e identical . 5. 0 EMISSION S AVERAGING
Ms . Daphn e McMurrer , o f th e SDB , reviewe d th e majo r section s o f th e emission s averaging portio no f th e HONregulatio nan d pointe d ou t tha t th e emission s averaging procedur e i s voluntary . Th e handou t i s provide d i nAttachmen t C . An AP I representativ e sai d tha t AP I ha s philosophica l difference s wit hth e curren t emission s averaging provision s an d doe s no t fee l th e provision s wil l b e utilize d i nth e petroleu m industry . Th e AP I fel t ther e wa s littl e incentiv e t o us e th e averaging provision s a s theyar e currentl ypresented . Th e AP I provide d a handou t (Attachmen t E ) citing specifi c concerns . Th e AP I adde d tha t th e averaging provision s wil l no t b e o f muc hus e t o th e petroleu

mindustryi f a refineryca n onl yaverag e among HONemissio n point s an d no t th e remaining emissio npoint s i nth e refinery . Th e EPAsai d tha t th e inten t o f emission s averaging a s a n alternativ e fo r complying wit hth e HONha s bee n misrepresente d b y variou s industrygroups . Th e EPA' s inten t i s t o allo wover contro l o f emissio n point s whic hmayb e cheape r o r les s difficul t t o contro l s o tha t source s ca navoi d contro l o f othe r emissio n point s tha t ar e subjec t t o th e same rul e an d ar e unusuall ycostl y o r difficul t t o control . Th e EPA' s interpretatio no f Sectio n 11 2 o f th e 199 0 Amendment s prohibit s averaging acros s sourc e categories . Th e AP I aske d i f th e EP Awa s intereste d i na nemission s averaging cas e study . Th e EPAsai d theyar e intereste d i na n

MCH/07 6 meeting.su

m 8example . I na Novembe r 22 , 199 2 meeting o nemission s averaging ,

th e EPAan

d industryagree d tha t industryhad th e responsibilit y o f providin g a voluntee r cas e stud yfacility . I n respons e t o a n AP I question , th e EPAsai d th e justificatio n fo r a quarterl yrolling averag e reportin g requiremen t wa s t o reduc e th e variabilit yo f emission s an d provid e th e abilit yt o pursu e enforcemen t action s mor e •" efficiently . Specifically , ther e i s concer n tha t us e o f emission s averagin g coul d increas e th e variabilit yo f HAP emissions . Also , wit hquarterl yaveraging , violation s fo r period s les s tha n 1 yea r coul d b e addresse d througha n administrativ e action , wherea s violation s unde r longe r averaging period s coul d involv e lega l proceeding s an d greate r penalties . I n respons e t o a n AP I question , th e EPAstate d tha t th e Pollutio n Preventio n offic e i s developing some guidanc e o nwha t i s considere d pollutio n preventio n fo r eac hkind o f emissio n point . 6. 0 PROCES S VENT S Ms . Sheil a Milliken , o f th e SDB , reviewe d th e majo r section s o f th e proces s ven t portio no f th e HONregulation . He r handou t i s presente d i n Attachmen t C Th e EPAaske d fo r comment s o n th e usefulnes s an d forma t o f th e reportin g an

d recordkeepin g table s presente d i n th e handout . Th e EPAals o mentione d severa l correction s tha t hav e bee nmad e t o th e HON . Th e constan t o npag e 36 7 o f th e draf t rul e shoul d b e 2.49 4 xIO" 6 and th e tota l resourc e effectivenes s (TRE ) constan t fo r ne wsourc e halogenate d stream s o n pag e 37 1 shoul d b e 1.41 7 xIO' 2

. Th e EPAinforme d AP I tha t staf f ar e considering i f th e HON shoul d requir e al l possibl e combination s o f vent s fo r calculatio n o f TR E inde xvalues . However , thi s issu e had no t ye t bee n presente d t o managemen t s o n o specifi c polic ychang e coul d b e

MCH/07 6 masting.su

m 9P.1 1

reported . Th e EPAals o clarifie d tha t th e rul e wa s no t intende d t o requir e a TR E calculatio n i f a ven t i s alread ycontrolle d throughcombustion . 7. 0 REPORTINGAND RECORDKEEPIN G
Dr . Jane t Meyer , o f th e SDB , state d tha t th e EPAi s intereste d i n finding way s t o remov e unproductiv e reporting an d recordkeepin g requirements . An AP I representativ e aske d i f th e EPAha d coordinate d HONrequirement s wit hTitl e V requirements , especiall yth e enhance d monitoring provisions . Th e EPAsai d th e requirement s hav e no t bee n compare d t o Titl e V sinc e thes e rule s ar e no t ye t fina l an d ar e a "moving target. " However , th e EPA wil l addres s an

yoverlap s o r conflict s betwee nth e permi t rul e an d th e HONprio r t o th e HON' s promulgation . Th e EPArequeste d suggestion s abou t ho wt o reduc e th e burde no f th e recordkeeping an d reportin g requirement s whil e maintaining enforceability . 8. 0 CLOSIN

G Th e EPAan

d AP I representative s agree d tha t th e meeting ha d bee n helpfu l fo r bot hgroups . Th e EPAencourage d AP I t o cal l th e relevan t EPAstaf f wit han yfurthe r question s o r comment s i n th e future .

MCH/07 6 meeting , su

m 1 0